IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.06.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C.R.P.Nos. 2964 & 2965 of 2022 and C.M.P.Nos. 16019 & 16020 of 2022 N.S.Venkatesh Proprietor M/s. Vens Agencies and M/s.RGM Electronics ... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.2964/2022 V.Vasantha, Proprietor M/s.Vens A to Z Enterprises and M/s.Rajasusi IEEC ... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.2965/2022 -Vs-

A.R.Abdul Hameed ... Respondents in both C.R.P.s Prayer in C.R.P.No. 2964 of 2022 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2022 in RLTA.No.31 of 2021 on the file of IV Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the order and decreetal order dated 01.10.2021 in RLTOP.No.295 of 2021 passed by the XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

Prayer in C.R.P.No. 2965 of 2022 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2022 in RLTA.No.321 of 2021 on the file of IV Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the order and decreetal order dated 01.10.2021 in RLTOP.No.294 of 2021 passed by the XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner in both C.R.P.s : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Advocate for Mr.S.Jaganathan For Respondent in both C.R.P.s : Mr. K.P.Ashok

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed in RLTA.Nos. 31 and 32 of 2021 on the file of IV Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the order and decreetal order passed in RLTOP.Nos.295 and 294 of 2021 passed by XV Small Causes Judge, Chennai respectively.

2. The revision petitioners/tenants have preferred these Civil Revision Petitions challenging the impugned concurrent findings of the courts below on the following grounds :-

(i) The courts below ought to have noted that the respondent having purchased the schedule mentioned property during the pendency of RCOP.Nos. 152 and 153 of 2018 filed by the erstwhile landlady against the petitioners, attempted to illegally dispossess the revision petitioners herein and thereby the revision petitioners were constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.3773 of 2020 on the file of XXIII Asst.

City Civil Court, Chennai.

(ii) The courts below failed to note that the respondent having failed in all his attempts to illegally dispossess the revision petitioners, filed the RLTOP.Nos.294 and 295 of 2021 without even withdrawing the earlier RCOP referred above.

(iii) The courts below ought to have noted that the respondent herein never expressed his intention to enter into a registered lease agreement with the revision petitioners herein after his purchase of the demised property, but wrongly filed the eviction petition alleging as if the revision petitioners failed to pay arrears of rent to erstwhile landlady and as if the revision petitioners failed to enter into a lease agreement with him by invoking the provisions contemplated under the new tenancy Act misleading the courts.

(iv) The Rent Court having found that the landlord has filed the eviction petition by taking advantage of the provisions under Sec.21(2)(a), Sec.21(2)(b), Sec.21(2)(g) and Sec.23 of the TNRRRLT Act, erroneously allowed the eviction petition on the sole ground of non-registration of lease agreement as per provisions of new Act.

(v) The courts below failed to note that the Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 requires the landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement in writing with regard to that tenancy.

(vi) Both the courts below simply followed the judgment passed by this court with regard to the maintainability of an application filed under the TNRRRLT Act and ignoring the judgment passed by this court.

3. On submitting the above grounds, the learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit that the first appellate court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the revision petitioners have not expressed the